 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
You are wrong. Germany beat Russia in WW1, the Poles beat Russia in the 1920s, the British and French beat Russia in the Crimean War, and the Japanese beat the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War, to name a few examples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
In the Winter War, the Finns had 19576 KIA, 3273 MIA, 33557 WIA, for a total of 66406.
The Soviets had 126875 KIA, and 264908 WIA, for a total of 391783.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
Bush can define marriage as a bond between man and woman... that's fine... but legalize civil unions... for any two consenting human beings.
Personally, I consider marriage to be man/woman.
my stance:
gay 'marriage' 
gay civil union  (legally identical to marriage in terms of legitimacy, legality, and taxes)
on a side note, Bush's true colors as a Christian fundy are shown... "all people are sinners" or whatever... that's bullshit. And personally, that brand of Protestantism is sickening. IIRC, if you murder billions, but then accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and repent, you still go to heaven. That's an extreme case, and hardly an accurate portrayal of all denominations, but nevertheless, part of some people's beliefs. I think the idea that we are all sinners is dangerous because then the religion is basically giving a free pass to people who do bad things because they know they can repent, accept Jesus, and sneak into heaven (theoretically)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Sava,
Actually, you misunderstand the way salvation works. It's based upon the condition of your heart, not what you say you believe. So, if you plot and scheme and kill a million people, planning all the while to "repent", God's gonna know. It doesn't work like that.
On the other hand, if you ARE a mass murderer, and after the fact truly repent, then yes, you will be saved. But you're talking about two completely different scenarios.
That's the Biblical teaching, at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:30
|
|
Well, now that Ming (or at least one of the mods...doesn't matter either way) has taken care of the flames/off-topic/spam that I knew were coming when I started the thread, I shall now post my reponses to some of the serious posts:
Bush's "We're All Sinners" comment:
I'm sorry, but I'm just not comfortable with ANY politician in the US government making such a blatantly religious remark. While refering to "God" can be viewed as a very general and vague symbol, making such a clear statement of personal religious beliefs has never set well with me, especially when made in conjunction with talk of law-making.
Bush supporting a ban, well duh:
Um, yeah, I get that. My point on that count is that the President of the United States has to be especially careful when taking sides publically in regards to social issues. Social issues are far more touchy subjects for most people than say economic ones. Dear Leader Bush has decided to publically alienate a section of the US population. Banning "Gay Marriage" may effectively ban "Civil Unions" by association. That is part of the agenda of the far right: to deny to homosexual couples ANY and ALL of the same and equal rights afforded to heterosexual couples. If they get their ban on gay marriage, they WILL seek to destroy any attempt at civil unions.
Codify:
Sadly, Slick Willy had signed the Defence of Marriage Act some years ago, so Bush is just following the political fad of pandering to the Religious Vote, even though he's a fundy himself...go figure.
Sloww's Picture:
  Thank you for making the effort to NOT be a hardass in this thread, unlike some people in here...
"Marriage:"
Marriage has always existed first and foremost as a contract between 2 groups of individuals wishing to combine wealth, territory, or secure peace between themselves. Religion has played second fiddle to that fact for most of history. Even Love often never placed the highest priority in such arrangements prior to the ceremony. Religion, specifically CHRISTIANITY, most certainly had not invented Marriage.
What the Religious Sects are trying to do is rewrite history. Marriage was always a legal contract; only to the devote of any organized religion did it take on such religious connotation. In modern times, non-secular marriages occur everyday WITHOUT ANY mention of ANY God. My mom and stepdad spent several weeks searching for and interviewing various priests and judges to find one who would perform the ceremony in just such a way, and in January of 1997 they found one and were wed. They did it not because of love (they already had 17 years of it...my entire life out of her womb...so they didn't need a piece of paper telling them they were in love) but out of the realization that we could financially benefit from a state-recognized marriage, among other benefits.
The fight for Gay Marriages is a fight for equal rights under the law. Marriage is a legal contract that many people apply religious attributes to (re: added to, not preexisting to). Gay couples do not need a piece of paper telling them they are in love, anymore than straight couples need to be told they are in love; they need that piece of paper to guarantee their equal access to the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples in such arrangements.
Gay adoption:
It has already been said that there are no studies that support the claim that children raised by gay couples are in danger. Gays are just as loving as straights, and just as fallible. To claim otherwise shows a willingness to claim the "mud races" are a bunch of uncouth, backward primitives that need to be domesticated "for their own good." Meaning: it is just as absurd and ignorant.
State vs. Federal handling of this issue:
This issue is about equal rights. Either the Federal government needs to enforce the 14th Amendment and allow Gay Marriage or the benefits of the legal institution of Marriage in this country need to be abolished outright, thereby eliminating the debate all together. Social issues of this magnitude should NEVER be allowed to be decided at the State level since A) each State is likely to reach different conclusions and B) the Federal government again has the 14th Amendment to worry about, only this time from 50 different directions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
quote:
Bush Shuns Calls to Legalize Gay Marriage |
Why is it his job to intrude on what is essentially a state matter? |
More interestingly, on which federal power would a federal ban against state laws establishing gay marriage be based? The SC rarely enforces the limitation of federal powers, but this looks like a stretch.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2003 07:31
). turkey and japan have beaten russia on their own in wars (although turkey do have a pretty dismal record against the ruskies), the turks were alsp involved in the crimean war and sent troops, along with piedmont-sardinia.
|